libertarian candidates

[crimresearch]

Then why else would they spend so much time and energy constantly posting things about the LP that are repeatedly proven to be not only bogus, but which make it look as though the party backed up their woo-woo beliefs?

Last I checked, there were some good ideas to be examined in the libertarian philosophy and even among the LP's ideas.
Last I checked, BillydKid was trying to explicate some of those by responding to questions in a reasonable manner.

But all we get from Shanek's bunch are claims that anyone who doesn't agree with Shanek, et al, is no true LP member.

Which is about as useful at persuading people that the LP is legit, as using David Duke, LaRouche, or Robert Byrd's more extreme polemics to recuit for their respective parties.

And the non-stop invective directed against anyone who actually posts references related to any LP matter is calculated to repel those who might be interested finding out if there is anything worthwhile in the party of Shankek, Rouser and Tony.

So, yeah in terms of working very hard to make the LP look foolish, and chase people away, they are about as anti-LP trollish as one can get.

 

[varwoche]

And the non-stop invective directed against anyone who actually posts references related to any LP matter is calculated to repel those who might be interested finding out if there is anything worthwhile in the party of Shankek, Rouser and Tony.

So, yeah in terms of working very hard to make the LP look foolish, and chase people away, they are about as anti-LP trollish as one can get.

The non-stop aspect is a real damper. I've avoided shanek-intensive threads in the past because they are endless, repetetive, and mind-numbing, like a "debate" with a religous fundamentalist.

From my perspective, what's interesting about Badnarik (and followers) is the extremism aspect (One True Belief), moreso than the politics.

 

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

BTW, isn't Badnarik also claiming to be a sovereign citizen of the Republic of Texas, and *not* a US citizen, therefor not subject to US law or taxes?

I'd like to know the answer to this also. I wouldn't be surprised, considering who his "Constitutional advisors" are; however I haven't been able to find any confirmation.

The only information I've seen about this is from a Badnarik supporter:

http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Number=1488446
Speaking of Badnarik and surprises, I'd like to dispose of one thing right now. The convention delegates had no more nominated Badnarik than a number of them began questioning his credentials and even suggesting a reconsideration of some kind. The problem: Michael Badnarik does not pay income taxes. He doesn't carry a driver's license. [my emphasis]

Was this something that came up at the convention?

 

[Rouser2]

The non-stop aspect is a real damper. I've avoided shanek-intensive threads in the past because they are endless, repetetive, and mind-numbing, like a "debate" with a religous fundamentalist.

From my perspective, what's interesting about Badnarik (and followers) is the extremism aspect (One True Belief), moreso than the politics.

Yeah, well from your perspective, anyone who promotes the constitution is an "extremist".


-- Rouser

 

[varwoche]

Yeah, well from your perspective, anyone who promotes the constitution is an "extremist".

Other than I've expressed the opinion that Badnarik is a nutcase, what gives you that idea?

Do his views on the constitution make sense to you?

Do you share the opinion that the president can overturn laws unilaterally?

 

[shanek]

Okay, I'm through with this thread. Obviously, no one here wants to debate honestly...

 

[Kerberos]

Okay, I'm through with this thread. Obviously, no one here wants to debate honestly...

Debate honestly = Agree with everything shanek says.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Yes, it is.

No, it's not. If you don't even understand what a force is, then it's rather pointless to discuss physics with you.

Then how would they stop competitors?

That would, of course depend on the specific monopoly. Your question is like asking "How do people make money?" Or "How many muscles do animals have?"

So, your insinuation that I'm going off my initial impression of the guy is inaccurate.

No, it's not. You refuse to accept any evidence that contradicts your initial impression.

No, it isn't. I'm saying that 1) you tried to paint him as a nutcase, and 2) you had no reason for doing so.

and 3) I am doing so dishonestly. That is, lying.

Just because you can talk out of both sides of your mouth doesn't mean you are absolved of answering the question.

You deny calling me a liar, and then immediately afterwards accuse me of lying. You're the one talking out both sides of your mouth. And it wasn't a question. It was a dishonest statement of my position with a question mark at the end of it.

Okay, you're just f*cking trolling now. What you said you said is EXACTLY what I said you said! And you call me a liar.

So the fact that we have a two party system constitutes the entirety of political knowledge? Are you for real?

If it is not withholding any kind of information that can be preceded with the definite article "the," then you could be said to say that the government is not withholding information (sans definite article) about this subject. Learn the language, please.

I did not say that, in general, the government does not withhold information. I said, in reference to a specific piece of information, that the government is not withholding that piece of information. You then responded that the government is withholding completely different piece of information. You're the one with a English comprehension problem. You see, the term "definite article" refers to an article that is, well, definite. By pointing out the fact that I used a definite article, I was trying to clue you into the fact that I was referring to (can you guess?) a definite piece of information. Not just any piece of information, a definite piece of information. Get it?
Def
i
nite
As in specific. Not general. Not just any. Definite.

How is it not an absurd exaggeration?

What!?! It's up to you to explain how it's an absurd exagerration, not for me to explain how it isn't. You're the one who made the claim. Now you won't even defend it?

And why do Demopublican politicians apparently get a free ride on this while a Libertarian gets slammed?

The "Demopublican" politicians want to blow up the UN?

Imploding a building no longer in use is a peaceful act of construction. It happens all the time. Get the f*ck over yourself.

And just how is it an act of construction? What is being constructed?

You most certainly did, by equating it to a violent act!

When did I do that?

Then above why do you deny that it is peaceful?

When did I do that?

So if we're talking about the President, we're talking about the President. Keep up!

Is a tautology supposed to be informative?

That exchange is NOTHING like the exchange we just had. You're just being dishonest, and using racism to try and somehow exalt your point.

The essential point is the same. Do you or do you not agree that specifically singling out a person or group for a statement implies that statement is true only for that person or group?

This, basically, is the conversation we had:
You: The president does not have a constitutional obligation to follow unconstitutional laws.
Me: Isn't that true of everyone?
You: Uh, we're TALKING ABOUT THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY HERE!!!!!

How is that "nothing like" the following exchange?
Me: Among blacks, there a lot of stupid people.
OP: Isn't that true for all races?
Me: Uh, we're TALKING ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE HERE!!!!

 

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by varwoche [/i]

>>Do you share the opinion that the president can overturn laws unilaterally?


A law in place via executive order most certainly can be overturned. A president may nullify other laws via non-enforcement.


You're Welcome.


-- Rouser

 

[Thanz]

Okay, I'm through with this thread. Obviously, no one here wants to debate honestly...

What the heck is this? I have been debating openly and honestly with you. It seems to me that you may have realized that your position on the common law is untenable and are too stubborn to admit it.

 

[varwoche]

Originally posted by varwoche [/i]

>>Do you share the opinion that the president can overturn laws unilaterally?

A law in place via executive order most certainly can be overturned. A president may nullify other laws via non-enforcement.

Thanks Rouser. I know about executive orers, I should have been more explicit. I was referring to laws passed by congress and, to drive the point home, explicitly ruled as constitutional by the supreme court.

Take gun laws. Badnarik says he will declare ALL gun laws unconstitutional on the first day of his presidency. (before lunch, actually).

That clarified, do you agree with Badnarik's position that the president is so allowed?

 

[shanek]

What the heck is this?

It wasn't targeted at you, but the others. And I don't want the stress of having to deal with it. If you want to continue to discuss Common Law in another thread, great; but I'm not going to put up with the incredible dishonesty exhibited by others (insisting that we must use the physics definition of "force"? Come on!) wading through this dungheap trying to find a diamond.

 

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by varwoche [/i]

>>Thanks Rouser. I know about executive orers, I should have been more explicit. I was referring to laws passed by congress and, to drive the point home, explicitly ruled as constitutional by the supreme court.
>>Take gun laws. Badnarik says he will declare ALL gun laws unconstitutional on the first day of his presidency. (before lunch, actually).
>>That clarified, do you agree with Badnarik's position that the president is so allowed?


The President can say or declare anything he wants. That doesn't necessarily mean that gun laws passed by the states will be ignored by the states. But Federal non-enforcement is certainly within his purvue --- even if not consistent with the Supreme Court rulings (see the previously cited cases regarding forced Indian removal, also the Dredd Scott case.) The Supreme Court may have upheld Fugitive Slave laws, but an even more powerful institution than the President (citizens juries) refused to uphold them. In a world of Liberty devised by our Founders, and envisioned as some day being re-established by current libertarians, each and every individual is a sovereign "king," including the President.


-- Rouser

 

[billydkid]

What springs to my mind...

The non-stop aspect is a real damper. I've avoided shanek-intensive threads in the past because they are endless, repetetive, and mind-numbing, like a "debate" with a religous fundamentalist.

From my perspective, what's interesting about Badnarik (and followers) is the extremism aspect (One True Belief), moreso than the politics.

What comes to mind is Barry Goldwater's statement that extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. I must say, all though I found Barry a little scarey as a kid, I have come to agree with him. In respect to liberty, yes, I am an extremist and yes, I believe there is one true believe. It seems ridiculous to me to have to be defending a belief in liberty and personal freedom and against the notion that one should apologize that the best and only decent is liberty for both you and me.

See if you can wrap you mind around this, there is a absolutely fundamental difference between the libertarian agenda and every other one. The libertarian agenda requires absolutely nothing of you. It doesn't have any expectation about what you may or may not do so long as you don't interfere with someone else's right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The libertarians ask nothing of you and me and everyone else except that we leave each other alone.

That is why I don't understand the resistance. Every other political movement has an agenda which involves deciding what you may or may not do and a desire to engineer the direction of society on personal level and requiring of you that you adopt or participate or support in some way their agenda. Libertarians want to be left alone and to leave you alone.

I am not nearly as knowledgable about libertarianism or anything else as is Shanek. He understand the fine details of libertarian economics and can make arguments I can't make. My whole approach to everything is pretty visceral. I believe in self ownership - which lays at the very core of libertarianism. I believe such basic stuff as this: if you own a piece of property nobody else should be telling you what you can do on it. If you want to ingest mind altering substances, then nobody has any business deciding for you whether you may or may not do so. You should have the rights to say or read or write or view absolutely anything you want to - however offensive I or someone else might find it.

All of these, I hope goes without saying, just so long as it doesn't interfere with someone elses right to do the same. Please bear in mind, that caveat applies to all liberties. You should have the right to conduct your life precisely as you want to so long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's right do the same.

I believe business should be free to decide whether or not their patron can smoke. I believe restaurants should be free to serve or not serve whomever they may or may not want to. I believe one of the fundamental rights we have is the right to be wrong, the right to be a jackass, the right to be racist or sexist or whatever. I believe the market will naturally weed out those people who are stupidly selective about their clientelle. That is what got blacks out of the back of the bus in Birmingham - economics. That is what opened the counter at Woolworths - economics. You don't need government doing it. I admire those people who did that very much. They used their economic clout to show the jackasses (not all southerners, just the jackasses) down there what was what. And then government steps in passes a bunch of legislation once those people already solved the problem themselves.

I believe the influence of government in society is largely a corrupting one. When they do respond to social problems it is always too late and it invariably creates worse problems than were already there - that is, when they are not actually creating or contributing to the problems. The problem is power. In libertarian society the power of some individuals over others is dramatically limited. People will always be to some degree corrupt. The answer is not to try and find "the right people". The answer is to limit the power anyone can have to such a degree that they can not screw up the lives of others to badly.

I'm sorry, I have gone on and on. Tell me this, though, do you not see the very fundamental difference between the political agenda of libertarians vs. every other political movement. I am not sure I made my self clear. The libertarians are not in it to tell you what to do or how to live or what to believe. They are in it to preserve all our rights to make those choices for ourselves. No other party can begin to say that. They all want control. The libertarians don't want control, but they don't want anyone else having it either. This is what the libertarians are not :"Won't someone please think of the children!!!!" my best, BDK

 

[crimresearch]

Your points would be well taken, IF those who belonged to a particular party actually acted in a manner consistent with the beliefs put forth by that party.

But they don't, they act in a manner consistent with human nature, and the question that people keep asking is what makes libertarians any different from any other partisan group seeking political power?

So far, the claim has been advanced that libertarians are the only ones who understand 'liberty' itself.

Now I haven't heard of a politician yet who wasn't willing to insist that locking people up, taking their land, etc. was perfectly compatible with the idea of 'liberty'.
That word falls as trippingly off the lips of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot as it does the lips of Reagan, Carter, Ashcroft, Byrd, or the mayor of Philadelphia.
The cry of 'Liberty' has been misused, and worked to death, and does not have any political capital.

So how are libertarians any different in that regard?
Well, given the stated libertarian promises to lock people up and seize property in the name of liberty, along with current actions such as driving without a license, turning blue, using oaths of membership, and not showing up in court to take responsibility for one's actions, you'll just have to excuse a few folks for being skeptical.

To the people who are victimized by the power hungry, and by the irresponsibility of others, does it really matter if their jobs, houses, land, or lives are forfeit to a 'bad cause', or a 'good libertarian cause'?

At the end of the day, the appearance that is being put forth is that the political arm of libertarianism is a group of people who are saying 'Just put us in charge, and we **promise** that we will be different from all the others who are also desperate to be in charge'.

And I'm just too skeptical to fall for that one any more.
The Democrats pulled the wool over everyone's eyes with that in the 60s, and they turned into a bunch of corrupt power whores, just like the Republicans, who are now trying to postition themselves as the 'outsiders'.
The Green party tried to claim the moral high ground of being different, and then put a corrupt GM executive and life-long power whore in charge.
Every Presidential debate is a bunch of power whores pointing fingers at each other, and angrily insisting that their own words and conduct should be off limits.

So, under the heading of 'Won't get fooled again', one more time, other than empty rhetoric and campaign promises, what **exactly* are the libertarians doing that is significantly, and usefully different than any other group of people who are desparate to be in charge?
Are any of them taking Mother Theresa's place in the slums of Calcutta? Winning Nobel Peace prizes? Giving away the rights to their newly discovered cure for cancer?

Or are they all running around acting exactly like a bunch of power hungry politicians?
Because I truly haven't seen examples of anything but the latter.

To borrow an old phrase, 'Where's the beef?'

PS: In case anyone doesn't quite get it yet, I don't like partisan politics. Any party...even your party.
And the instant someone shows me a case of a party ACTING differently, instead of *claiming* to act differently, I'll be all ears.

 

[Art Vandelay]

It wasn't targeted at you, but the others. And I don't want the stress of having to deal with it. If you want to continue to discuss Common Law in another thread, great; but I'm not going to put up with the incredible dishonesty exhibited by others (insisting that we must use the physics definition of "force"? Come on!) wading through this dungheap trying to find a diamond. [

You MUST be trolling. It's dishonest to insist that you use the actual definition of words? You must have a really screwed up sense the word "honest". Apparently it's synomynous with "agreeing with me, no matter how ridiculous and oblivious to reality I am".

 

[DoubleStreamer]

Your points would be well taken, IF those who belonged to a particular party actually acted in a manner consistent with the beliefs put forth by that party.

Are you blaming the party for some isolated instances of individuals failing to live up to those beliefs, or is there some widespread inconsistency you can identify?

But they don't, they act in a manner consistent with human nature, and the question that people keep asking is what makes libertarians any different from any other partisan group seeking political power?

Try not to trip over yourself getting too specific.

So far, the claim has been advanced that libertarians are the only ones who understand 'liberty' itself.

Who made this claim? Because as nearly as I can tell, the claim made by most libertarians is not that they are the only ones who understand it, but rather, they are the only ones whose agenda consistently respects it. And you don't exactly have a stellar record for substantiating your own paraphrasing.

Now I haven't heard of a politician yet who wasn't willing to insist that locking people up, taking their land, etc. was perfectly compatible with the idea of 'liberty'.
That word falls as trippingly off the lips of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot as it does the lips of Reagan, Carter, Ashcroft, Byrd, or the mayor of Philadelphia.
The cry of 'Liberty' has been misused, and worked to death, and does not have any political capital.

So, basically you're blaming libertarians for the misdeeds of others. Guess that speaks well for them if that's the best you can do.

So how are libertarians any different in that regard?

They generally tend to use the word correctly, that's how. You didn't expect this to be a problem, did you?

Well, given the stated libertarian promises to lock people up and seize property in the name of liberty,

Any chance you can substantiate this characterization any better than you did with "dictating people's religious tenets to them" or "the freedom to be a religious bigot, and to laugh at the religious beliefs of Quakers"? 'Cause so far, all you seem to be doing on this subject is demonstrating your own profound ignorance.

turning blue,

And how does this conflict with liberty exactly?

using oaths of membership,

You mean the promise not to use violence to achieve their goals? Yeah, they're real bastards.

you'll just have to excuse a few folks for being skeptical.

Um ... in trying to demonstrate libertarians' misuse of the word "liberty", do you have any actual examples of, you know, incompatibility with liberty?

To the people who are victimized by the power hungry, and by the irresponsibility of others, does it really matter if their jobs, houses, land, or lives are forfeit to a 'bad cause', or a 'good libertarian cause'?

Does anybody know what the hell he's talking about here?

At the end of the day, the appearance that is being put forth is that the political arm of libertarianism is a group of people who are saying 'Just put us in charge, and we **promise** that we will be different from all the others who are also desperate to be in charge'.

And I'm just too skeptical to fall for that one any more.

And what's your alternative again?

The Democrats pulled the wool over everyone's eyes with that in the 60s, and they turned into a bunch of corrupt power whores, just like the Republicans, who are now trying to postition themselves as the 'outsiders'.
The Green party tried to claim the moral high ground of being different, and then put a corrupt GM executive and life-long power whore in charge.

Yeah, that's it. You want to make an ironclad case against Libertarians? Cite examples of what other parties have done wrong.

Every Presidential debate is a bunch of power whores pointing fingers at each other, and angrily insisting that their own words and conduct should be off limits.

Did you happen to notice that one thing every Presidential debate is not is a debate that includes libertarian candidates?

So, under the heading of 'Won't get fooled again', one more time, other than empty rhetoric and campaign promises, what **exactly* are the libertarians doing that is significantly, and usefully different than any other group of people who are desparate to be in charge?

Consistently supporting the right of individuals to run their own lives. I hope this clears up some of your confusion.

Are any of them taking Mother Theresa's place in the slums of Calcutta? Winning Nobel Peace prizes? Giving away the rights to their newly discovered cure for cancer?

Are these among your requirements for finding a political candidate to be acceptable?

Or are they all running around acting exactly like a bunch of power hungry politicians?

Because I truly haven't seen examples of anything but the latter.

I'm guessing those examples are just as compelling as the ones you provided to support your characterizations "dictating people's religious tenets to them" and "the freedom to be a religious bigot, and to laugh at the religious beliefs of Quakers". What were they again?

To borrow an old phrase, 'Where's the beef?'

If you've taken a look at the Statement of Principles and the party platform, and still have to ask, then is there any chance you can provide a clear example of what it would take to qualify as "beef"?

PS: In case anyone doesn't quite get it yet, I don't like partisan politics. Any party...even your party.

They probably don't like you either.

And the instant someone shows me a case of a party ACTING differently, instead of *claiming* to act differently, I'll be all ears.

Any chance you can clearly identify what a party that has no actual power, and therefore no ability to effect change, would do to demonstrate that they are "ACTING differently"?

 

[DoubleStreamer]

Originally posted by varwoche
From my perspective, what's interesting about Badnarik (and followers) is the extremism aspect (One True Belief), moreso than the politics.

Sorry, but I just couldn't let this laugher pass without comment. Given the consistency with which libertarians (and Libertarians) support individuals' running their own lives according to their own beliefs, they are about as far from "One True Belief" as you can get. I never cease to be amazed at the different ways in which people will try to spin a strong, consistent respect for the right of individuals to make their own decisions as if it were just the opposite.

 

[crimresearch]

Ah, I see the trolls are working in shifts.

Given Rouser/DoubleStreamer/Shanek's track record of ignoring posted links to actual references, so that he/they can contnue to remain unconfused by the facts, I'll concede that everything he/they says is as true as his/their rhetoric would lead one to believe.

 

[DoubleStreamer]

Ah, I see the trolls are working in shifts.

Yes, it's much easier to refer to someone has a "troll" to deflect attention from your own failures than to actually respond to the questions they've asked, and the points they've raised.

Given Rouser/DoubleStreamer/Shanek's track record of ignoring posted links to actual references, so that he/they can contnue to remain unconfused by the facts, I'll concede that everything he/they says is as true as his/their rhetoric would lead one to believe.

I'll let Rouser and Shanek defend themselves, but all I've asked you to do is to support some of your rather bizarre characterizations of libertarians, and so far you (and your "posted links to actual references") have failed miserably. That failure on your part does not equate to my having ignored anything. And oh yeah, I'll put my "track record" for honest discussion up against yours any day of the week.